PHOENIX — If you’re going to sue the government, you’d better make sure you — or your attorney — have a good proofreader.

In a unanimous decision, the Arizona Supreme Court has thrown out the lawsuit that Joseph Terborg filed against the town of Payson. The reason: his notice of claim listed two different amounts he said he’d accept to settle his case. 

The ruling means Payson is off the legal and financial hook over an incident in which a police dog owned by the town attacked Terborg instead of going after a suspect. It also underscores how strictly Arizona courts can enforce the requirements for filing claims against government entities, even when the mistake appears to be nothing more than a typographical error.

According to court records, the police dog, named Corso, was chasing a suspect when it instead attacked Terborg, who had come out of the house he uses as a home and office for his Mobile 1 RV Service.

“I’m standing outside, a guy hit a pole,” Terborg told Capitol Media Services. “A cop shows up, lets the dog out without a leash, orders it to attack the guy. And the dog runs around the guy and turns and gets me instead.”

Terborg said the dog was on him for four minutes, causing injuries that required $110,000 in medical treatments, including surgery.

Arizona law requires anyone seeking to sue a government entity to file a “notice of claim” within 180 days, spelling out the basis for seeking funds and “a specific amount for which the claim can be settled.”

Terborg’s original attorney, who was not identified in the court records, said his client would settle for “one hundred thousand dollars ($250,000).” When the town did not respond within 60 days, he filed a lawsuit.

But the town, citing the two different figures, convinced a trial judge to rule that Terborg had not complied with the notice-of-claim requirements, meaning he had no right to sue in the first place.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, citing a provision of contract law saying that when there is a conflict, “words prevail over numbers.” The appellate judges also noted that Terborg indicated he was open to “negotiate a fair settlement.”

But the Supreme Court said none of that matters.

Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing for herself and her colleagues, said the purpose of the notice of claim is to allow a government entity — in this case, Payson — to investigate the claim, assess its liability, consider a settlement and budget for future litigation.

“The officer must either state a specific amount or supply a basis that lets the public entity calculate that amount,” she said.

“A specific amount is precisely that,” Timmer said. “A claimant cannot satisfy this requirement by providing two amounts or otherwise providing an imprecise figure, any more than he could satisfy it by providing none at all.”

Terborg said this “technical error” in the notice of claim should not bar his ability to get the town to pay his medical bills. And, if nothing else, he said that the town should have contacted him and asked him to correct this “obvious typographical error.”

Timmer was unpersuaded.

“Although a public entity may ask a claimant to clarify a claim or provide additional information, there is nothing in [the law on claims] that requires it to do so,” she wrote. “Our case law has clearly held that public entities in Arizona are not duty-bound to assist claimants with statutory compliance.”